An Embarrassment of Riches

It's time to get serious on renewables. We need a new, robust, European-style feed-in tariff.

Renewable energy is taking off in many places around the world. Growth rates of 30-50% in wind and solar have been the norm for the last decade in the US and around the world. Unfortunately, California has been stuck in neutral when it comes to wholesale renewables, relinquishing its early lead in the global renewable energy race.

The nations that have led the way on renewable energy in the last decade have used robust “feed-in tariffs” to create entire new industries. The litany is familiar to those in the renewable energy business: Germany, Italy, Spain, Ontario (a province in Canada) and now China. These five regions have all seen growth go from low levels to record levels practically overnight right after they started requiring that utilities buy power at a set price from third party developers of wind, solar and other renewables.

A sixth jurisdiction is less well-known: California. But not the California we live in now. Rather, the California that created a robust feed-in tariff in the 1980s under the federal Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA). Under PURPA, California faced an “embarrassment of riches” in terms of renewable energy projects coming online, as the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) described it at the time.

The large majority of wind and solar projects online today in California came online in the 1980s and 1990s under PURPA. Since PURPA was effectively gutted in the early 1990s, due to declining fossil fuel prices and tax policy changes, California has seen very little wholesale renewable energy come online. The current system, the Renewables Portfolio Standard (SB 1078 and SB 107), started in 2003 and has resulted in a tiny amount of new renewable energy development since then. All three of California’s big investor-owned utilities will fail to meet the current 20% by 2010 mandate for renewables and have, in fact, slid backwards in terms of their renewable energy percentages since the start of this policy (see figure 1, below).

The California Solar Initiative, which applies only to net-metered retail solar, is doing quite well and is probably on track to meet its goal of 3,000 megawatts (MW) of new solar by 2017. But this is only about 2% of the projected electricity demand by 2017 – a relative drop in the bucket when we consider that the state mandate for renewables has been expanded to 33% by 2020. With the state hovering around 12% (for investor-owned and publicly-owned utilities combined), it’s clear we need some very serious solutions to reach this mandate.

We need an “embarrassment of riches” – again. California has a very limited feed-in tariff on the books today. AB 1969, passed in 2007 and implemented in 2008, allows any renewable energy project up to 1.5 MW to be interconnected to the grid and the utility must buy the power at the “market price referent,” which is the proxy cost for electricity from a new natural gas power plant. Only a handful of new projects have come online under this new feed-in tariff, however, because the size cap – what amounts to a single large wind turbine for wind power projects – and the price offered, are too low to attract investors. In addition, the interconnection process is opaque, lengthy and can be quite costly due to very limited oversight by the CPUC or CAISO, the non-profit agency that oversees the transmission grid.

SB 32, passed in 2009, would double this size limit to 3 MW, and provides authority to the CPUC to improve the pricing formula by accounting for the environmental benefits of renewables, instead of purely the traditional power component of renewable energy. But the law also gives great discretion to the CPUC to implement this law – or not – which is a major flaw in the law. The CPUC has so far declined to implement the law, almost a year after it passed.

It’s time to get serious on renewables in California. We need a new, robust, European-style feed-in tariff. The CPUC has suggested an expanded quasi-feed-in tariff system, known as the Renewable Auction Mechanism. But this isn’t a true feed-in tariff because companies have to bid into the system and wait for the utilities to select the winning bidders. There is no price transparency, so other companies won’t even know what the winning price was after the fact. And it costs a lot of money to develop project sites to the point where serious bids can be made. It takes deep pockets that only a few companies have. In other words, all but the wealthiest developers are shut out of the market.

That’s no way to create a long-term market to benefit all Californians. Last, as we’ve already seen, it takes a long time to ramp up new systems like the auction policy – we’re still waiting for a proposed decision a year after the staff proposal was released.

AB 1106 (Fuentes), a bill that I co-authored, is pending in Sacramento. It failed to get out of committee last year, partly due to the competition from SB 32 and the perception that that much weaker bill could actually be passed into law. SB 32 did pass, but we now know that the CPUC has no intention of getting serious on feed-in tariffs. SB 32 still hasn’t been implemented and even if it is eventually implemented, the size cap is still way too small to make a big difference.

The size cap under PURPA was 80 MW. AB 1106 would allow projects up to 10 MW to qualify for the “must buy” feed-in tariff. This is a good start – far better than the 3-MW cap under SB 32.

With prices for wind, solar and other renewables now dropping significantly as production ramps up around the world, price is becoming less of an issue. The market price referent system, which includes a boost for peak power deliveries, can be quite good even for small wind power projects. The key market barriers for wind projects in the less than 20-MW range are generally not pricing anymore – rather market barriers relate now to difficulties with interconnection access and finding areas that have good wind that can be permitted without significant opposition.

For solar, pricing is still difficult under today’s market price referent formula, but costs continue to come down for solar so this may change in the next few years, which will leave access to the grid as the major problem for solar projects.

The key benefit of a true feed-in tariff is certainty: market players know that if they meet certain criteria they can develop a project and have a guaranteed buyer for the renewable energy delivered to the grid, in a streamlined process. And they know the price they’ll be paid, making financing easier.

With this kind of certainty financiers will accept lower profit margins, thus reducing prices charged to ratepayers. For example, under an auction system, financiers may require 12-15% return on equity, which is pricey. But with a true feed-in tariff, financiers are happy with less than 10% because they know they’ll actually make this money year in, year out, without a lot of money wasted on speculation or failed projects.

For this reason and others, a recent National Renewable Energy Laboratory concluded: “Experience from Europe is also beginning to demonstrate that properly designed FITs may be more cost-effective than” auction systems like California’s current system and the new system proposed by the CPUC for smaller projects.

It’s time for California to reclaim its lead in renewable energy. We don’t have time to tinker around with new policies every few years, hoping they will work, and then conceding failure. Let’s take the tried and true policy that is widely accepted as the best way to rapidly accelerate renewable energy deployment. We need a robust feed-in tariff in California. Now.

Tam Hunt, J.D., is President of Community Renewable Solutions LLC, a consulting company and developer of medium-scale wind, solar and biomass projects. He is also a Lecturer in climate change law and policy at the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management at UC Santa Barbara.

25 Comments

Petition Background
California law does not allow home owners to size their Solar systems larger than what they use. In order to get the California Solar Initiative (CSI) rebate, the customer is not allowed to install a system that inherently over-produces more than what is needed for his home.
The Feed-in Tariff can not be earned if you receive a rebate from your utility company for solar panels or if you are participating in other utility solar incentives programs such as the CSI. It also can not be earned if you are participating in net metering, which only pays one time a year under the AB 920 California Solar Surplus Act.
Our Feed-In Tariff should mirror Australia, Germany and Japan, where residential FIT is 30 cents - 60 cents per kilowatt hour.
The 4 cents per kwh currently administered as a one-time-a-year payment is not adequate and stops our own citizens from participating in our struggle to reduce green house gases.
The California Public Utility commission can change the FIT to 25 cents per kwh, and distribute the solution to all tax-paying citizens, who should not be deliberately handcuffed. Residential home owners should be allowed to participate in the State mandated goal to achieve 33% renewable energy by 2020.
California resident who purchase an electric vehicle can expect a 60% increase in their electric bill, as shown by a study done by Purdue University in summer of 2010.
Due to these laws, we have automatically taken out over 8 million roof tops, that would generate over 11,500MW of power, thats 5 San Onofre nuclear power plants.
We need to let our tax paying, home owning citizens in on a Feed in Tariff that pays 25 cents per kwh.
In the spirit of Bill McKibben and 350.org for our children and eaarth, lets make real global sustaining changes for all of us.

California law does not allow homeowners to size their Solar systems larger than what they use.
Residential home owners, should be allowed to participate in the State mandated goal, to achieve 33% renewable energy by 2020.
Due to this law, we have automatically taken out over 8 million rooftops, that would generate over 11,500MW of power, thats 5 San Onofre nuclear power plants.
We need to let our tax paying, home owning citizens in on this Feed in Tariff, it would be a gold mine for the State, Counties, Cities and the Environment, the possibilities of each entity selling carbon credits is an untapped gold vein.

That's why I created a petition to California Energy Commission, California Public Utility Commission and Governor Jerry Brown, which says:

" The California Feed in Tariff allows eligible customers-generators to enter into 10- 15 or 20 year contracts with their Utilities to sell the electricity produced by renewable energy systems, let California homeowners in on the Feed in Tariff allowing them to oversize their Solar systems."

The 22 c/kWh FIT payment would not be enough for residential PV, and that is not its intent. The intent is to provide a high enough payment to spur adoption of solar in the 100 kW and above category, on rooftops, parking lots, open space, etc., as well as other renewable energy technologies, which will receive lower payments b/c they're cheaper.

As for RECs, I'm not a supporter, but there's a lot of momentum behind out of state projects meeting CA RPS requirements and as long as they don't exceed 25% of all compliance I'm not going to raise a huge stink about it.

ANONYMOUS
July 3, 2010

I don't suppose the full E3 and Black & Veatch report is available? The ppt file gives no justification of the 3 Billion dollars/year cost estimate.

22 cents/kWh does not sound nearly as profligate as most other FITs, but I am just a bit suspicious of the ability to generate solar PV--especially small scale PV--at that price. Is 22 cents/kWh the total cost of a kWh of solar or is this an increment above the ~9.7 cents/kWh estimated for natural gas?

I also am reminded that ~26% (by energy) of the goal is merely met by purchasing Canadian and other US states renewable energy credits (RECs). I fail to see the benefit of an REC purchase--it just seems like a transfer payment to other jurisdictions at a time when CA can ill afford it....
Steven

PS. The 22 c/kWh price isn't even a subsidy if you include all the benefits of solar power as a peak resource plus other benefits. Here's a recent report from the California Solar Energy Industries Association quantifying the true value to ratepayers from solar power:

I misspoke in my last post: net cost in the "trajectory scenario" is projected to be $3 billion per year in direct costs, which doesn't include many societal benefits from renewables, or the reduction in natural gas costs from a higher penetration of renewables.

ANONYMOUS
July 1, 2010

Is a copy of the E3 and Black & Veatch report available anywhere?
Steven

Steven, renewables are often cost-effective today when compared with natural gas power - the default option for renewables. Here's the latest Energy Commission Comparative Cost of Central-Station Generation study from 2009, demonstrating this conclusion:

The most recent detailed analysis, completed by E3 and Black & Veatch for the CPUC's long-term procurement proceeding, found a net cost of just $2 billion per year for meeting the 33% by 2020 RPS mandate in the expected scenario, which includes transmission and balancing costs. This is chump change versus the total cost spent on power each year by California ratepayers.

And as I mentioned above, all the feed-in tariff projects online in California, which came online in the 80s and 90s, were by definition cost-effective b/c they are paid the "avoided cost" of energy.

If California adopts a European-style FIT, it won't include exorbitant prices for renewables. In our most recent proposed language for AB 1106, we recommended a 22 c/kWh maximum payment for any renewable energy source. this is about 25% higher than the current pricing available under the MPR plus TOD formula, and would apply most likely only to solar PV, not other renewables, which are much cheaper.

A recent study was completed by Dan Kammen at UC Berkeley, on the costs of a comprehensive feed-in tariff in California. They conclude that the costs are net positive due to job creation and other ancillary benefits. This study will be released shortly.

So the bottomline is this: we need to take dramatic action to meet the state's GHG and renewable energy goals, renewable energy prices are at or below fossil fuel power costs, and all that is needed now is a little additional policy certainty.

ANONYMOUS
July 1, 2010

Tam,
I have read them all (and a panoply of others), and they not are as convincing as you suggest.
The proper comparison to a 20 year fixed contract for solar power at an oversized European style FIT is not natural gas but solar power 10 years out when prices are MUCH cheaper (or perhaps geothermal power if newer drilling techniques and enhanced geothermal schemes finally pan out). I will bet you that virtually every renewable technology is markedly cheaper 10 years from now that it is now. We would be much better off spending on R&D and transmission refinements now than we would be on accelerating purchases of generation equipment before it is cost competitive.

I note than none of your favorite reports consider strategies where one increases R&D spending instead of a buildout of current technologies and none consider economic projections associated with various rates of buildout. A pell mell rush usually isn't the best way to win a marathan....
Steven

If CA adopts European style FITs, the states electricity prices will rapidly rise compared to the national average and businesses will flee to cheaper states

Steven, please read the sources I cite and review again what I wrote. The basic idea behind locking renewable energy contracts, and the ratepayer benefits that accrue, is that the rate literally doesn't change for 20 years. So as power from natural gas and coal power plants continues to rise 5% or more a year, the renewable energy price stays the same. So you can in fact have a PPA price for renewable power that starts higher than for fossil fuel power that leads to very substantial ratepayer savings over time. Willing to bet me that fossil fuel prices won't continue to rise over the next 20 years?

ANONYMOUS
July 1, 2010

Tam writes in comment 12: "Requiring long-term power purchase agreements for renewable energy projects makes a lot of sense for ratepayers b/c it protects against volatility and allows power prices to be "locked" for 20 years or more."

I don't see the virtue in locking in prices that are well above the market rate for 20 years or more--at least for rate payers. Prices for renewable generation are expected to decline steadily, especially for solar thermal and PV, so locking in high prices for decades is just another kick in the head for rate payers in states pushing early adoption with above market FITs. I also note that 20 year contracts for developers don't protect the manufacturers from the boom and bust cycles that tend to occur when governments repeatedly tinker with markets. Quite a few Spanish businesses went broke due to changes in their governments inept FIT implementation.

Tam goes on to write in comment 13: "a European-style FIT payment implemented in California or other states doesn't necessarily lead to higher costs, even in the short term, for ratepayers...."
European-style FITs have led to higher rates pretty much everywhere they have been implemented. Why should CA be any different? As for possible savings in transmission capacity, typically intermittent renewables require increased transmission compared to dispatchable or baseload generation.
Steven

PS. While European-style FITs often require payments above the wholesale market rate, particularly for solar, a European-style FIT payment implemented in California or other states doesn't necessarily lead to higher costs, even in the short term, for ratepayers. This is the case b/c it is simply not accurate to look at only the cost of energy as the total "avoided cost." There are many other relevant costs, such as the avoided cost of transmission and distribution lines, avoided local capacity requirements, avoided system resource adequacy costs, avoided greenhouse gas emissions, avoided criteria air pollutants, etc. And PURPA actually requires that state determinations of avoided costs under PURPA consider the benefits to ratepayers from fossil fuel reductions and transmission line savings.

Last, check out the NREL report I cite in my article for a comparison of ratepayer costs under traditional auction systems for renewables and FITs. They concluded, citing many rigorous sources, that European-style FITs can in fact be more cost-effective than auction systems, for a variety of reasons.

Steven, you are right that California does not count large hydro (over 30 MW) as renewable, due to its impact on the environment. But small hydro does count. I'm not sure about Germany in this regard, but your point is still moot even if we assume that your figures are correct b/c, as I stated in the article, the lion's share of California's renewables came online in the 80s and 90s under PURPA's feed-in tariff. This was an avoided cost tariff, which means that prices were set at the calculated price for the default power contract (natural gas electricity from a new power plant, essentially). So, by definition, such contracts were cost-effective. PURPA contracts got a bad rap as being over-priced, after the fact, because fossil fuel prices dropped. But this is an unfair charge b/c there is almost no other way to provide contracts for renewables due to the lack of fuel costs (other than biomass) and the need for long-term contracts to get over the financing hump for capital costs, which are the large majority of the total cost of renewable energy projects, distinct from fossil fuel power that has a "pass through" cost for fuel. In other words, utilities get to simply pass through the cost of natural gas and coal, no matter what the market price is, and renewables get no such benefit b/c it's not applicable for power plants that have no fuel cost.

As for Spain and "fixing prices" under feed-in tariffs, some fixed price is necessary for renewables in most cases b/c financiers simply won't finance renewable energy projects unless there's a long-term contract in place. There are some exceptions to this rule and there have been some merchant wind power plants built, but they are very rare.

Requiring long-term power purchase agreements for renewable energy projects makes a lot of sense for ratepayers b/c it protects against volatility and allows power prices to be "locked" for 20 years or more.

ANONYMOUS
June 29, 2010

Tam,
You also write in comment 9: "As for Spain, I made my point already: solar PV had some issues in 2008 b/c of an unanticipatedly high interest in the Spanish FIT, but other renewables, which comprise the lion's share of renewables in Spain did not experience such a dip. The dip, by the way, occurred in 2009 b/c of a change in Spanish policies prompted in large part by their broader economic problems, not the FIT policy itself. So the Spanish PV market was a victim of its own success."

FITs are a government attempt to fix prices to induce a desirable rate of growth for a particular set of generation schemes. Finding a price that yields a desirable rate--as opposed to an overheated market or a market that barely exists--is an inherently complicated task, especially given the pace of technological innovation and concomitant production cost variability. Spain clearly overestimated the price needed to achieve their targeted growth rate and this led to many problems, not just the costs of unanticipated extra capacity. If you set the price high enough placing a set of PV panels in a location frequently shaded by a large oak tree becomes profitable, and if your property only contains such sites it is still in your best interests to move into the PV market. This clearly isn't in the best interests of energy consumers though, who naturally prefer optimal siting and the cheapest possible pricing to achieve a given level of renewable production. Spain experienced such suboptimal siting problems as well as a flurry of shoddy PV equipment (which tends to sell well in overheated markets) produced from manufacturers who may now be out of business (and thus the warrantees are worthless). I think you significantly underestimate the importance of these difficulties and the difficulties in general with state-regulated pricing for a commodity with rapidly varying production costs.
Steven

ANONYMOUS
June 29, 2010

Tam,
You write in comment 9: "The new 2009 figures were just released by the CPUC and there was some improvement in 2009, up to 15%. When we look at the state as a whole, which includes public utilities, we are about 14%. So still less than Germany."

This is an apples to oranges comparison. The CPUC data strip out large hydro from the definition of what a renewable is. The German government tends to report percentages including hydro power (which certainly seems more reasonable). The German "non-hydro renewable" percentage of the total 2009 generation market is 12.7% so the CA value of 14% is greater than the comparable German value--not less as you claim. Germany's fossil fuel mix is mainly coal, which is typically markedly cheaper than natural gas (which is the vast majority of the fossil fuel used in CA) yet aggregate electricity prices in Germany are markedly higher than those for CA. One significant reason for that is the amount of money the Germans are pouring into FITs. In short, CA has a higher percentage of non-hydro renewables, a higher percentage of hydro power, a much cleaner mix of fossil fuel types, AND significantly cheaper prices than Germany. Thus, pretty much across the board, the CA situation is better than it is in Germany unless perhaps you are a vendor of renewable generation trying to get good prices for your product.
Steven

Steven, I cited California's renewable percentage in my article: CA's three investor-owned utilities were at a collective 12% in 2008. The new 2009 figures were just released by the CPUC and there was some improvement in 2009, up to 15%. When we look at the state as a whole, which includes public utilities, we are about 14%. So still less than Germany.

As for Spain, I made my point already: solar PV had some issues in 2008 b/c of an unanticipatedly high interest in the Spanish FIT, but other renewables, which comprise the lion's share of renewables in Spain did not experience such a dip. The dip, by the way, occurred in 2009 b/c of a change in Spanish policies prompted in large part by their broader economic problems, not the FIT policy itself. So the Spanish PV market was a victim of its own success.

You are right about Germany's biomass market also being significant, so I should have said that wind and biomass are the lion's share of the German FIT market.

ANONYMOUS
June 29, 2010

Now Tam, if you are going to claim someone's facts are "a bit off" you really should cite references for your own. The EIA claims in this site: (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/state_profiles/california.html) that CA's renewable percentage is 24.7% for the last year they have data (2007), the percentage for 2009 is probably a shade higher because overall demand has slipped due to the economic downturn. This site:
http://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/ren-Strom-D/index_e.php
claims German renewable percentage as 16.0% for 2009, which is about 0.9% higher than it would be if demand had not slumped from 2007 levels due to the recession. I claim that 24.7% is not "about the same" as 16%, I bet most people would even agree that 16% is "well below" 24.7% as I claimed above.

Incidentally, German renewables are 40.3% wind, 32.7% Biomass, 20.4% hydro, and 6.45% solar PV, so describing them as "mostly wind power" seems inaccurate, especially given their very large levels and growth rates for biomass.

As for Spain's solar situation, a 96% drop in an industry where a 30% increase would be normal would be considered by many to qualify as a disaster, especially when much of the 2008 production was poorly sited. My point, which you incidentally have not chosen to contest, is that FIT policies are hard to implement in a manner that does not lead to substantial market volatility and require constant tinkering. If you want to spend lots of money (and typically at above market clearing rates) you will be able to increase PV installation rates markedly, but I think CA needs a more nuanced definition of "success". A pell-mell rush to install renewable capacity isn't a sustainable approach and benefits only a few renewable industry insiders.
Steven

Anonymous, your facts are a bit off. Spain's FIT has not been a "disaster" as is commonly thought. Look at the actual progress on renewables in Spain and you'll see that has in fact, as I write, been a great success. They had some hiccups in relation to solar PV in 2009 and the solar PV market did in fact plummet in 2009, due to an "embarrassment of riches" in Spain, ie. more applications than they thought they'd get. But the FIT as a whole is doing quite well and even the solar PV market may do quite well in Spain in 2010. Some forecasts show Spain as one of the top solar PV markets as we move ahead - due entirely to their FIT.

And Germany's renewables percentage is in fact about the same as California's now, with a little more than a decade of serious FIT policy in Germany responsible for this remarkable growth - which is mostly wind power and only a small minority solar PV. California's renewable energy portfolio is also, as I write above, due almost entirely to its PURPA FIT in place during the 1980s and 1990s.

Ergo, FITs are responsible for the amazing growth in renewables in the three markets you mention: Spain, Germany and California (in the 1980s and 1990s).

ANONYMOUS
June 28, 2010

Tam writes: "We don't have time to tinker around with new policies every few years, hoping they will work, and then conceding failure. Let's take the tried and true policy that is widely accepted as the best way to rapidly accelerate renewable energy deployment. We need a robust feed-in tariff in California"

FITs don't exactly qualify as "tried and true" in the usual sense of that term. Spain's solar FIT was a disaster than contributed to a damaging boom and bust cycle. Germany's FIT is partially responsible for their having one of the highest electricity prices in all of Europe--and a renewables percentage that is still well below that of CA. The most effective means of promoting renewables is price reduction, but if you look at the long term (decades) price trends for solar you would be hard pressed to identify any positive effect of FITs on price. Given CA's very serious economic problems and energy prices that are already significantly above the national average, I question of wisdom of lavish FIT price guarantees. It seems to me the most important step CA could take now would be to reduce the morass of regulatory policies that make planning large projects and especially distribution capacity so costly and time consuming.
Steven

ANONYMOUS
June 28, 2010

It is perhaps worth noting that the EIA estimates 24.7% of CA's 2007 electricity generation as coming from renewables, whereas Tam claims ~12% above. Presumably the difference is in the ~13% of generation that comes from hydroelectricity, which most people (except possibly legislators in the state of CA) would consider renewable. Another ~17% of 2007 generation came from nuclear power and nearly all of the ~58% from fossil fuel generation was from natural gas.
Steven

I don't like the title of this article. The embarrassment of riches is elsewhere, in the 65 countries with feed-in tariffs, including virtually all of Europe. Like you say, the US needs an embarrassment of riches. In the meantime, you should call it "an embarrassment of corruption." Utilities have used political power to rig bidding in regulated states (especially here in Minnesota), while their spinoffs are monopolizing markets in deregulated states.

I am confused about what is going on in California. In the past, you have seemed positive about the state's renewable energy programs. Not in this article. The state's feed-in tariffs and interconnection rules are obviously structured to fail. I know you screwed up deregulation. In the past, you have acted oblivious to my problems with rigged bidding. But now your explanation about California auctions sounds like you are fully aware. I suspect you are also aware about how PURPA has been rigged in the past by utilities claiming they don't need any more power and daring independents to challenge in the kangaroo court of the PUC. How can renewable energy firms enter the market in your state if let's say the technology is cost competitive with fossil fuels?

"In its entire life it returns only a small fraction of the energy that is required to make it."

I think you said this backwards, but if not, to me this means that the total energy required to make the "piece of equipment" is far, far greater than the output of the "piece of equipment" over its life.
Lets take the Siemens 3.6 MW turbine (3600 KW). Over just one year at 50% of rated capacity, that turbine will produce, 3600kW x 24 hrs x 365dys x .50 capacity = 15,768,000 KWH or 53,816,184,000 BTU's (that's Billion) or 384,401 gallons of #2 fuel oil. Now, I have not looked it up, but it seems to me that the total energy required to produce these in a factory can not even come close to the energy output of these devices even for only one year of service. So, I will go back to my first sentence and guess that you just said it backwards.....

We need to get serious ? - are you kidding !? - It's looking quite serious enough to me as things stand. I.e. What sort of a "Growth rate" would we see were all the energy for it supplied - not by fossil and nuclear, but by the "Renewable energy sources" which we are supposed to be about to rely upon in the future ? Minus how many %p.a. would it be ?
Wind-energy - my department, I have reason to believe - is Indeed a major answer to the dilema facing us from our dependence upon fuel-burning. In its entire life it returns only a small fraction of the energy that is required to make it. This is a fact for which there exist 4 simple reasons.
1) The Cost of any Turbine-Alternator combination is a necklace-shaped funtion of SIZE, because the two components T and A, exhibit opposite "econonomy of size" i.e. the cost/m^2 of the T is directly linked to Size, whilst the cost/watt of Alternators reduces with Size.
2) There are two possible modes of operation
i)Constant revs (vary pitch to suit wind) and
ii)Constant Pitch (vary revs to suit wind)
The former - practiced in "Windfarms" takes energy from the wind more or less "pro-rata" with windspeed. whereas ii) takes power in a very much cubicly related way, e.g. if the wind doubles in speed the power taken will be 2 x 2 x 2 its former value.
3) The "Betz limit" which applies to any rotor placed directly in the air.
It caps the maximum fraction of the total energy which is takeable to 1/3
This is because the air diverges and therefore slows around the rotor. The effect can be reduced by very thoughtful ducting.
4) The larger the structure the greater the losses from inability to face veering winds, and also the diverse range of velocities over the swept area.

I just have one question for you, since you seem to be "up to your waist" in this knowledge area. Who is making the money right now in the "current state of affairs", as opposed to before?? Again, not WHO is not getting money, but who is.

.....Bill

Add Your Comments

Tam Hunt is managing member of Community Renewable Solutions LLC, a renewable consulting and project development company focused on community-scale wind and solar. He is also a lecturer at UC Santa Barbara’s Bren School of Environmental...